|
Post by AngelZ on Oct 27, 2008 18:28:45 GMT -5
And by that reasoning if my next door neighbour asked me to look after his stash of kiddy porn I wouldn't be aiding and abetting him in his crime would I?
Special Ops can't stop the information being leaked, but it can choose not to assist in the spreading of the unofficial spoilers.
Susan the script editor's request was a simple and courteous one - to help contain the number of unofficial spoilers that were currently circulating around the internet. She never threatened the board with legal action - she just asked nicely. In the past the producers never seemed to have a problem with the small number of spoilers that were leaked, the problem started when script sides started to appear on the internet. The number of leaked spoilers simply got out of control.
The producers are obviously grateful for the fan community and realize that many people want the spoilery tidbits because since the clamp down on unofficial spoilers, they have increased the number of official press releases and promo images.
|
|
|
Post by Mr.Clark on Oct 27, 2008 18:53:56 GMT -5
And by that reasoning if my next door neighbour asked me to look after his stash of kiddy porn I wouldn't be aiding and abetting him in his crime would I? I'd say thats a flawed example because in this instance a piece of information (thats not a threat to national security) isn't in and of its self an illicit item. I think a better example would be if you were in possession of your neighbors stereo only to find out it was stolen, technically its wrong of you to have stolen goods but you didn't commit the crime the more relevant interest is in those that committed the criminal act. I'm sure CBS knows about places like Spoilertv, sites like that are the ones that should be clamped down on and taken legal action against, there making a profit off of the criminal act. Not the supporters of you product who just want to learn more about it. Again I don't have much of a bone to pick with the fine people at SpecialOps just the people at CBS who are coming down hard on there friends because there to lazy to go after there real enemies.
|
|
|
Post by shywriter on Oct 28, 2008 1:00:09 GMT -5
I'd say thats a flawed example because in this instance a piece of information (thats not a threat to national security) isn't in and of its self an illicit item. I think a better example would be if you were in possession of your neighbors stereo only to find out it was stolen, technically its wrong of you to have stolen goods but you didn't commit the crime the more relevant interest is in those that committed the criminal act. Again I don't have much of a bone to pick with the fine people at SpecialOps just the people at CBS who are coming down hard on there friends because there to lazy to go after there real enemies. Your stereo example is also flawed, as it's not analogous to the nature of what's being taken. How about this analogy: Let’s say you’re a baker, and you make really great doughnuts. Every day you make two dozen, but every day, a couple hours before you’re ready to open your store, someone comes in and steals 20 of the 24 you made. He keeps and eats 5, but the other 15 he gives to his friends – they didn’t steal the doughnuts, but know they’re stolen & eat them anyway. They exclaim that they’re hungry and are your best customers because they love your doughnuts so much they gobble them as soon as they can get them – and you should be flattered that they like your doughnuts so much. They suggest that if you want to go after someone, get the guy breaking in & taking the doughnuts – but until then, they’re going to eat all the doughnuts they can get. Does this mean you should just be pleased that your doughnuts are such a hit? Wouldn’t you at least be ambivalent that your “biggest fans” are making it difficult for you to make a livelihood making the doughnuts they love so much? And if they really like the doughnuts so much, wouldn't you want them to pay for the food they know has been taken from you, just to help keep you in business? Doesn't their reaction mean that they expect you to make them doughnuts, at a financial loss to you and eating up your valuable time, just because they know someone willing to steal the doughnuts and make them available to them for nothing? The show is a commodity, an expensive one to produce at the quality we want it to maintain. The internet makes it way too easy for individuals to get free copies of things they used to pay for – and the people who make TV & music & movies have to be incredibly creative to walk the fine line between sharing their product in the way of teasers and free access, and keeping the material new enough that advertisers will pay to put their product out there. As AngelZ pointed out, the “baker” just asked we respect that, and if we do, they’ll give out samples on occasion, maybe throw in a free one in that baker’s dozen when we pay for 12. By watching the show where & how they make it available (SO much more available any time, at the click of a mouse, than a few years ago), we’re helping ensure they can continue to pay MW & the others to give us new shows every week. PS: You know, it's often more than "technically" wrong to keep and/or deal in stolen property -- it too can be a crime. And don't be so sure that "the people at CBS ... are coming down hard on their friends because they're to lazy to go after their real enemies." I suspect they're doing what they can to patch the leaks without making being too overt.
|
|
|
Post by Mr.Clark on Oct 28, 2008 2:25:58 GMT -5
If I was the baker in your little analogy I'd A. beef up my security or B. open up sooner. But mainly I'd beef up security.
I also highly doubt CBS is loosing much if any money due to spoilers. If your the type to seek out spoilers online then your obviously not the type who won't watch a show because he/she just read a spoiler for the Ep unless A. your not going to watch the Ep anyway or B. you read something that you don't agree with and whatever you've read about isn't worth your time in which case I don't think that show/film deserves your support anyway. At least thats why I look up spoilers. Basically if your say Paramount and you make a crap movie and spoilers leak revealing crappy plot holes then you shouldn't be rewarded by making money when you didn't try to provide a quality product, unless of course your willing to offer refunds to unsatisfied customers.
As far as legal action goes places like spoilertv or even AICN would have been shut down years ago unless networks/studios A. aren't trying hard enough or B. Don't have a legal leg to stand on. Look at Napster when the MPAA decided it really gave a **** it shut down Napster ASAP.
I'm seriously getting carried away here both with my little A/B thing and the fact that this doesn't really bother me as much as I'm probably leading everyone to believe. I just have a hard time keeping my mouth shut when I don't believe in the way somethings being handled. Plus I have a pathological inability to avoid playing the martyr when it comes to getting my point across.
|
|
|
Post by dzero on Oct 28, 2008 10:53:37 GMT -5
I'd say thats a flawed example because in this instance a piece of information (thats not a threat to national security) isn't in and of its self an illicit item. I think a better example would be if you were in possession of your neighbors stereo only to find out it was stolen, technically its wrong of you to have stolen goods but you didn't commit the crime the more relevant interest is in those that committed the criminal act. Again I don't have much of a bone to pick with the fine people at SpecialOps just the people at CBS who are coming down hard on there friends because there to lazy to go after there real enemies. Your stereo example is also flawed, as it's not analogous to the nature of what's being taken. How about this analogy: Let’s say you’re a baker, and you make really great doughnuts. Every day you make two dozen, but every day, a couple hours before you’re ready to open your store, someone comes in and steals 20 of the 24 you made. He keeps and eats 5, but the other 15 he gives to his friends – they didn’t steal the doughnuts, but know they’re stolen & eat them anyway. They exclaim that they’re hungry and are your best customers because they love your doughnuts so much they gobble them as soon as they can get them – and you should be flattered that they like your doughnuts so much. They suggest that if you want to go after someone, get the guy breaking in & taking the doughnuts – but until then, they’re going to eat all the doughnuts they can get. Does this mean you should just be pleased that your doughnuts are such a hit? Wouldn’t you at least be ambivalent that your “biggest fans” are making it difficult for you to make a livelihood making the doughnuts they love so much? And if they really like the doughnuts so much, wouldn't you want them to pay for the food they know has been taken from you, just to help keep you in business? Doesn't their reaction mean that they expect you to make them doughnuts, at a financial loss to you and eating up your valuable time, just because they know someone willing to steal the doughnuts and make them available to them for nothing? The show is a commodity, an expensive one to produce at the quality we want it to maintain. The internet makes it way too easy for individuals to get free copies of things they used to pay for – and the people who make TV & music & movies have to be incredibly creative to walk the fine line between sharing their product in the way of teasers and free access, and keeping the material new enough that advertisers will pay to put their product out there. As AngelZ pointed out, the “baker” just asked we respect that, and if we do, they’ll give out samples on occasion, maybe throw in a free one in that baker’s dozen when we pay for 12. By watching the show where & how they make it available (SO much more available any time, at the click of a mouse, than a few years ago), we’re helping ensure they can continue to pay MW & the others to give us new shows every week. PS: You know, it's often more than "technically" wrong to keep and/or deal in stolen property -- it too can be a crime. And don't be so sure that "the people at CBS ... are coming down hard on their friends because they're to lazy to go after their real enemies." I suspect they're doing what they can to patch the leaks without making being too overt. We are getting billed for this, aren't we?
|
|
|
Post by AngelZ on Oct 28, 2008 17:29:22 GMT -5
Mmmmmmmm Doughnuts!
|
|
|
Post by shywriter on Oct 28, 2008 23:07:05 GMT -5
We are getting billed for this, aren't we? (OMG, how did you know to pick the vid from which I stole my answer??? ) ...I could be arguing in my spare time... ~ ;D~
|
|
|
Post by shywriter on Oct 28, 2008 23:39:33 GMT -5
If I was the baker in your little analogy I'd A. beef up my security or B. open up sooner. But mainly I'd beef up security. I also highly doubt CBS is loosing much if any money due to spoilers. Pragmatics aside -- your response fails to hold the wrongdoer responsible. The first response, counseling a change of behavior, and the second, to spend money and/or time to "beef up security" demands that the victim change his behavior. Why do you give the thief a pass?? Or the thief's buddies, who continue to eat his stolen wares? Your third response, saying CBS isn't losing much money, says theft isn't theft if the victim isn't hurt too badly. Again, your response fails to hold accountable the wrongdoers in the scenario -- here, not only the original thief, but those who knowingly consume the goods they know to have been taken without payment, and taken against the wishes of their rightful owner. It really isn't the right of a third person to decide if a victim has been victimized. I think you'd agree that CBS did not want their clips leaked beyond what they themselves offer -- we don't know how much money they lose, but again, that's not the point. It doesn't make it okay if they don't lose much, or if they don't spend even more money trying to stop the leak. (In these days of people trying to claim Obama is socialist! Justifying the theft of goods so we who want the spoilers can watch them is far more 'socialist' a leaning than anything like universal health care... )Look, I ran to look at those clips -- yeah, I shared in the ill-gotten gains -- but as a small payback, also dutifully watched all the commercials when I watched the whole show as a first run on CBS tonight, so the clips didn't result in the loss of my eyeballs for their advertisers tonight. I'm the last one to fall back on the conservative, 'rules is rules' position in most arguments, but when you think of it, we are turning into a 'blame the victim' society: if you're mugged, you're at fault because you carried too much money/ wore too expensive jewelry in the wrong place; a wife who is abused for the second or third time is at fault because she didn't leave after the first time. Arguing pragmatics misses the point -- why shouldn't we hold the mugger accountable for the theft or the abuser accountable for his decision to handle his frustration with his fists? Think about it-- how sad is it that society assumes that it falls to the victim to change his behavior rather than to insist that the wrongdoer -- the criminal -- stop doing wrong? (I know we've co-opted the episode's thread, but at least it's NCIS related... )
|
|
|
Post by shywriter on Oct 28, 2008 23:41:48 GMT -5
Mmmmmmmm Doughnuts! The best answer of all! Yummy! (And the doughnut doesn't look bad either! ;D)
|
|
|
Post by dzero on Oct 29, 2008 0:41:42 GMT -5
Good episode. Genuine mystery, didn't have clue until Gibbs did . Yes imagine that, someone enjoying the mystery of a crime show . Of course NCIS can be entertaining with just focusing on the characters we all love but it is so much better when it keeps us guessing. I'm not too late with my reply to Aerie's silly "why do you people give a f^ck about who done it" argument am I?
|
|
|
Post by Mr.Clark on Oct 29, 2008 0:53:53 GMT -5
Ok as far as my reasoning for the hole security thing is that its kind of like this. If your house gets robbed every week you can't tell me that your not going to call Brinks after week 2 or 3. Is that there only option no. One slightly more sinister thing our intrepid baker could do is bake extra donuts with a little mild laxative in them, this would be equivalent to CBS leaking some disinformation to discredit whatever else is floating out there, or they could hire a PI to find the crook. If CBS has people watching Special Ops they can clearly see what sights are putting stuff out there and they could take action if they chose to.
As far as there being the victim, if somethings happening to you repeatedly theres some onus on you to take some responsibility and stand up for your self. The world at large isn't going to protect you unless you protect yourself. If you don't want your neighbors to look into your yard or see what your doing the onus is on you to build a fence and close your blinds you cant run around and say No no don't turn this way!
Thats basically what it comes down to if you don't want the world to know about your business keeping it a secret is on you. Thats basically what this is, its not about possession its about keeping secrets.
|
|
|
Post by Mr.Clark on Oct 29, 2008 0:55:40 GMT -5
Good episode. Genuine mystery, didn't have clue until Gibbs did . Yes imagine that, someone enjoying the mystery of a crime show . Of course NCIS can be entertaining with just focusing on the characters we all love but it is so much better when it keeps us guessing. I'm not too late with my reply to Aerie's silly "why do you people give a f^ck about who done it" argument am I? That was SOOO three days and 2 arguments ago. But your right it was nice to have a genuine mystery.
|
|
|
Post by Michele on Oct 29, 2008 4:40:29 GMT -5
I just saw this episode over at youtube. I liked it. I been watching Dark Angel for most of the day, so I have not really seen other people's post.
I'm going to watch DA episode Haven now (I love Haven).
|
|
|
Post by spikeloud on Oct 29, 2008 8:47:28 GMT -5
[/quote] is this the one where tony goes undercover as homer simpson? ;D
|
|
|
Post by AngelZ on Oct 29, 2008 18:02:10 GMT -5
I gave it an 11 out of 10 just because they played Barry White ;D Take off your brassiere my dear A plot that had more holes than swiss cheese - but who cares? The dialogue and banter was excellent. Everyone got plenty of great lines...even Ducky! Tony and his Norman Bates impersonation
|
|